Show Reference: "The neural binding problem(s)"

The neural binding problem(s) Cognitive Neurodynamics (1 September 2012), pp. 1-11, doi:10.1007/s11571-012-9219-8 by Jerome Feldman
@article{feldman-2012,
    abstract = {The famous Neural Binding Problem ({NBP}) comprises at least four distinct problems with different computational and neural requirements. This review discusses the current state of work on General Coordination , Visual Feature - Binding , Variable Binding , and the Subjective Unity of Perception . There is significant continuing progress, partially masked by confusing the different versions of the {NBP}.},
    author = {Feldman, Jerome},
    day = {1},
    doi = {10.1007/s11571-012-9219-8},
    issn = {1871-4080},
    journal = {Cognitive Neurodynamics},
    keywords = {binding, cognitive-model, philosophical},
    month = sep,
    pages = {1--11},
    posted-at = {2012-09-20 14:27:58},
    priority = {2},
    publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
    title = {The neural binding problem(s)},
    url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11571-012-9219-8},
    year = {2012}
}

See the CiteULike entry for more info, PDF links, BibTex etc.

O'Regan and Noƫ argue that there is not an illusion that there is a "stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene" in the brain, but that people have the impression of being aware of everything in the scene.

The difference is that we would not need a photograph-like representation in the brain to be aware of all the details even if we were aware of it.

There is an illusion that there is a "stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene" in the brain.

Jerome Feldman argues that the Neural Binding Problem is really four related problems and not distinguishing between them contributes to the difficulty of understanding them.

Jerome Feldman distinguishes between the following four "technical issues" that together form the binding problem: "General Considerations of Coordination", "The Subjective Unity of Perception", "Visual Feature-Binding", and "Variable Binding".

The general Binding Problem according to Jerome Feldman is really a problem of any distributed information processing system: it is difficult and sometimes impossible or intractable for a system that keeps and processes information in a distributed fashion to combine all the information available and act on it.

Jerome Feldman talks about the sub-problem of "General Considerations of Coordination" of the general Binding Problem as more or less a problem of synchronization and states that modeling efforts are well underway, taking account physiological details as spiking behavior and neuron oscillations.

The sub-problem of "Subjective Unity of Perception" according to Feldman is the problem of explaining why we experience perception as an "integrated whole" while it is processed by "largely distinct neural circuits".

Feldman relates his "Subjective Unity of Perception" to the stable world illusion.

Feldman gives a functional explanation of the stable world illusion, but he does not seem to explain "Subjective Unity of Perception".

Feldman states that enough is known about what he calls "Visual Feature Binding", so as not to call it a problem anymore.

Feldman explains Visual Feature Binding by the fact that all the features detected in the fovea usually belong together (because it is so small), and through attention. He cites Chikkerur et al.'s Bayesian model of the role of spatial and object attention in visual feature binding.

Feldman states that "Neural realization of variable binding is completely unsolved".

Feldman dismisses de Kamps' and van der Velde's approaches to neural variable binding stating that they don't work for the general case "where new entities and relations can be dynamically added".

According to Friedman, Hummel divides binding architectures into multiplicative and additive ones.

Interestingly, Feldman's assertion about the inability of de Kamps' and van der Velde's approach to work in the general case, and the example Friedman gives, seem to be in direct contradiction to de Kamps' and van der Velde's claims.